Final rule clarifies animal welfare standards under organic seal even as its own fate is uncertain

By Elizabeth Crawford contact

- Last updated on GMT

Source: iStock
Source: iStock
Even though a final USDA rule strengthening animal welfare standards squeaked into the Federal Register today before the new administration takes control of country, the rule may not be safe from repeal, like so many others finalized under Obama’s leadership. 

The final Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule​ details how producers and handlers who want to be certified as organic must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their health and well being, including how much space animals need, what types of medical procedures are allowed and when, and how to most humanely transport and slaughter animals.

Many stakeholders, including the Organic Trade Association and the Animal Welfare Institute, laud the final rule as a way to level the playing field among organic handlers by reducing inconsistencies in how the previous guidelines were interpreted and bringing the standards more in line with consumer expectations for organic products, as well as improving the lives and health of farm animals.

But others say the rule goes too far.  

Among those who oppose the changes is the National Pork Producers Council, which promises in a statement to “work with the Trump administration and Congress to repeal yet another ‘midnight’ regulation.”

In a written statement, OTA conveys that the rule, while finalized late in the current administration is far from a last-minute or carelessly crafted regulation.

“This regulation reflects over a decade of public input through the organic industry’s transparent rule-making process, and OTA applauds USDA for listening to these perspectives and crafting regulations,”​ Laura Batcha, CEO and executive director of OTA, said in a statement.

The trade association also comes across as unfazed by the threat of repeal, noting that it “looks forward to working with USDA and the organic industry during the implementation phase of this major advancement of the organic label.”

The role of consumer perception in rule-making

Timing of the finalization aside, grounding the final rule partly in the public’s perception of what organic should mean could leave it open for repeal, based on the NPPC’s arguments.

NPPC President John Weber argues in a written statement that the final rule oversteps the scope of the organic food production law and cows to public perception of how animals should be treated under the organic seal without scientific justification.

“This is precisely the type of executive branch overreach that Congress will reign in through regulatory reform,” ​Weber said.

For example, he explained, “animal production practices have nothing to do with the concept of ‘organic,’”​ which Weber says is limited to feeding and medication practices.

He adds that including animal welfare requirements in the organic food production law “is no different than requiring all farmers wear bib overalls or paint their barns red in deference to public sentiment.”

OTA sharply disagrees, explaining in a statement that “animal welfare, which includes healthy living conditions and the best animal husbandry practices, has always been a high priority of organic producers, and consumers have come to rely on organic livestock and poultry being raised according to the highest standards.”

These standards include “a clean, transparent and environmentally-friendly production system, and that is, and always has been, the model for organic,”​ the association explained.

With this in mind, it goes on to argue that the “regulation strikes the proper balance between consumer expectations with the realities of commercial animal product, both small and large.”

For example, it notes that USDA adjusted the final rule to reflect requests by some producers, such as one by broiler chicken operators for additional time to build more houses to maintain current production levels while still meeting new indoor stocking density requirements.

The final rule also removed the “one cow, one stall”​ and “full recumbence”​ requirements for indoor space for cattle based on a recognition that operators have a wide range in types and styles of operations, OTA noted.

Safety of standards debated

NPPC is not convinced and argues that by bowing to consumer perceptions of how animals should be treated, some of the standards in the final rule could jeopardize animal and public health.

“The provision on outdoor access, for example, is in conflict with best management practices to prevent swine diseases that pose a threat to animal and human health,”​ it argues.

OTA, however, notes the final rule removes a requirement for contact with soil for mammalian livestock based on health concerns for swine and soil and water quality concerns for cattle.

The association also notes USDA removed a requirement that doors in buildings housing poultry must allow all birds to exit within one hour, recognizing that such a requirement not only would be difficult to verify but could allow rodents to enter, posing a food safety risk.

Related news

Show more

Related products

show more

Bringing Clarity to Soy Sauce and Seafood

Bringing Clarity to Soy Sauce and Seafood

Kikkoman Sales USA, Inc. | 29-Nov-2017 | Product Brochure

Transparency in food labels, menu descriptions and ingredients themselves: Consumers demand it and now Kikkoman has a clear new way to deliver product...

30544-Fortitech-HeartPart1-Banner-SmartLead-616x347

Strategic Nutrition for Heart Health-Part II

Fortitech® Premixes by DSM | 18-Oct-2017 | Technical / White Paper

Consumers are increasingly shopping for heart healthy products. Identify nutrients that can help differentiate your products and learn how custom nutrient...

Related suppliers

3 comments

Living in the Past

Posted by Chris Jackson,

The "poor but wise factory farmers" - give me a break - total contradiction in terms - abject nonsense. Factory farming cares only for a faster buck for all those involved, with total disregard for animal welfare. You clearly consider only $$$ where animal welfare is concerned, blinded by your years of desensitization. Contrary to your self centered concepts, animals are sentient beings and, as the human race has evolved, treatment of animals has become an issue - at least for a better educated and more responsible population - who have the temerity to challenge what goes on in the meat industry. Charges and adverse publicity against personnel in the meat industry e.g. at stockyards/transportation/ slaughterhouses/packing plants has been to put gags on eye witness reports of animal cruelty. So there is very clearly a lot to be hidden - which those in the industry do not wish to be made available to the public. In addition, your derogatory reference to "unwashed masses" does nothing to support your argument, indeed you appear to regard any challenge to your point of view with the same disrespect you have for the welfare of animals.

Report abuse

LOL Jennifer's comment

Posted by Mike,

Trolled

Report abuse

Animals have moral status that must be respected? What's next?

Posted by Jennifer,

OMG, America has gone crazy! The poor but wise factory farming industry is being forced to bow to the unwashed masses, who have been duped ( DUPED, I say!) by the wealthy, powerful animal rights lobby, into believing that animals are sentient beings and meat and eggs proffered as "clean" and "healthy" must therefore be taken from bodies that were not stressed and abused their whole lives? What's next? The argument that women can think logically, and should therefore be given the vote?

Report abuse

Follow us

Products

View more

Webinars